source_id EC-Earth3-GrIS correct landIce & release_year

[treerink]

The EC-Earth consortium (institution_id is EC-Earth-Consortium) kindly asks for the following changes in the CMIP6_CV.json:

Please correct for our source_id: EC-Earth3-GrIS configuration the landIce model version and number of vertical layers and its release_year as follows:

    "EC-Earth3-GrIS":{
        "activity_participation":[
            "CMIP",
            "ISMIP6",
            "PMIP"
        ],
        "cohort":[
            "Registered"
        ],
        "institution_id":[
            "EC-Earth-Consortium"
        ],
        "label":"EC-Earth3-GrIS",
        "label_extended":"EC-Earth3-GrIS",
        "license_info":{
            "exceptions_contact":"@ec-earth.org <- cmip6-data",
            "history":"",
            "id":"CC BY 4.0",
            "license":"Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)",
            "source_specific_info":"",
            "url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
        },
        "model_component":{
            "aerosol":{
                "description":"none",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"none"
            },
            "atmos":{
                "description":"IFS cy36r4 (TL255, linearly reduced Gaussian grid equivalent to 512 x 256 longitude/latitude; 91 levels; top level 0.01 hPa)",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"100 km"
            },
            "atmosChem":{
                "description":"none",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"none"
            },
            "land":{
                "description":"HTESSEL (land surface scheme built in IFS)",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"100 km"
            },
            "landIce":{
                "description":"PISM v1.2 (5 km x 5 km for Greenland, 31 levels)",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"5 km"
            },
            "ocean":{
                "description":"NEMO3.6 (ORCA1 tripolar primarily 1 degree with meridional refinement down to 1/3 degree in the tropics; 362 x 292 longitude/latitude; 75 levels; top grid cell 0-1 m)",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"100 km"
            },
            "ocnBgchem":{
                "description":"none",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"none"
            },
            "seaIce":{
                "description":"LIM3 (same grid as ocean)",
                "native_nominal_resolution":"100 km"
            }
        },
        "release_year":"2023",
        "source_id":"EC-Earth3-GrIS"
    },

Note this is the same EC-Earth3 configuration as the one which is still subject of the open status of #1076.

(tagging @shutingdk)

[durack1]

@treerink great, I will close #1076 in favour of this new issue. I presume there is progress in getting EC-Earth3-GrIS simulations finalized, so will happily update the entry with the above. Do you have an estimate of when data will be published to ESGF?

[durack1]

@treerink that problem is now fixed in CMIP6_source_id.html, please take a peek to confirm.

I'll reopen this issue, so we can resolve the cohort to "Published" when the data is live published on ESGF.

[treerink]

@treerink that problem is now fixed in CMIP6_source_id.html, please take a peek to confirm.

Thanks a lot, that looks perfect to me!

I'll reopen this issue, so we can resolve the cohort to "Published" when the data is live published on ESGF.

I understood publishing will (hopefully) be before summer, but only DMI can tell, so @shutingdk is the best one to inform on that.

[durack1]

@shutingdk @treerink just circling around on this - any progress to report? We are starting to move toward sunsetting the CMIP6 project, so am closing up remaining loose ends - new data can continue to be published into the https://aims2.llnl.gov/search?project=CMIP6Plus project

[durack1]

Just circling back around, it appears that data for EC-Earth-GrIS is not yet published

[treerink]

@shutingdk ? Sorry I don't know the status.

[durack1]

@shutingdk ? Sorry I don't know the status.

No problem. If it's not live by the time this repo (and CMIP6) is sunset, then there are options to publish it, but it make require a couple of tweaks to the data files to make that seamless

[shutingdk]

@durack1 @treerink we decided to move on to the EC-Earth3-ESM-1, and not work on the EC-Earth3-GrIS. The Couple simulaitons with GrIS will use the model configuration EC-Earth3-ESM-1 which is the CMIP6plus model.

[durack1]

@shutingdk would you like me to deregister this model then? We could also migrate the EC-Earth3-ESM-1 registration across to the CMIP6Plus_CVs if that is where you plan to publish simulations..

[durack1]

I will deregister this model later this week if I hear no concerns

[treerink]

@shutingdk would you like me to deregister this model then? We could also migrate the EC-Earth3-ESM-1 registration across to the CMIP6Plus_CVs if that is where you plan to publish simulations..

This register request has been asked here WCRP-CMIP/CMIP6Plus_CVs#89 (with some urgency from our side ;) )

[treerink]

I will deregister this model later this week if I hear no concerns

I am going to ask if there are no concerns, I am not sure. For sure it will give conflicts with our post process tool, but solving that is at our side of course.

[durack1]

@treerink thanks for engaging.

Just so I am clear, simulations from the model configuration named EC-Earth3-GrIS have been abandoned, and so deregistering this model information is not going to cause any problems no? (this issue focus)

The registration for EC-Earth3-ESM-1 is a separate issue - as noted in #1222, and the fresh issue in WCRP-CMIP/CMIP6Plus_CVs#89. The comment above about an "conflicts with our post process tool" is not clear to me - are you running data generation as I type?

[treerink]

@durack1 @shutingdk sorry I was not earlier aware of the decision that the EC-Earth3-GrIS configuration has been abandoned, though I understand this decision from the EC-Earth context and that we continue with EC-Earth3-ESM-1 instead. De-registration however causes some trouble with our pre & post process tool, which is at our side - and which is not that comfortable around this time of the year. I propose to delay this de-registration until 1st of February, if that is ok with you?

[durack1]

@treerink no problem, delay is fine.

Just to clarify, as EC-Earth3-GrIS is not being used, and no data is being generated, is my assumption that deregistering that model will not cause problems ok?

Obviously, if you are currently working on configuring/writing data from EC-Earth3-ESM-1 then we can leave things as they are until early 2025, and then make sure you have what you need to update your post-processing with CMIP6Plus to get you modernized.

[treerink]

Not entirely sure we are on the same page, thus our preference summarized:

• De-registration of EC-Earth3-GrIS preferable at Feb 1 2025.
• Full registration / completing of EC-Earth3-ESM-1 for CMIP6 AND CMIP6Plus asap

[durack1]

@treerink @shutingdk just circling - I have been keen to clean things up for a while.

Can you explain to me why the EC-Earth3-GrIS deregistration is going to cause problems, if this model (and simulation output) has been abandoned? I am trying to understand downstream consequences of changes.

As noted above, and if I am following EC-Earth3-ESM-1 is now the model configuration that is being actively developed/used, and simulation output (presumably following the CMIP6 protocols, with CMIP6-era forcing) are underway/planned, which is why #1222 was opened?

[treerink]

Earlier de-registration is of course not causing problems at the level of data production or publishing, this configuration is obviously not longer used. It has to do with our cmorisation and configuring tool, which manage the configuration for all ECE configurations for all possible MIP combinations and its cmorisation. This needs adjustment, because of course the data request and the CMOR tables are used. A little bit more time makes it easier to get this smoothly done without unforeseen pain for users, and unless I am wrong from your side it doesn't matter much if this takes place Feb 1st (no delay, don't worry).

[durack1]

Ok sure, we can park this for an early 2025 job. I am reluctant to leave this until February however, as we have project migrations (in the old vs new ESGF) to start to prepare for, and cleanup of loose ends is helpful. I'll ping this thread again mid-January so we can get these two EC-Earth3* configuration changes implemented and get your ECE configurations synced with the latest.

The CMIP6 Data citation cleanup is occurring now, with a scheduled close-down 31 Dec 2024, and a number of EC-Earth3 configurations are missing information - these are:

• mip_era=CMIP6&activity_id=CMIP&institution_id=EC-Earth-Consortium&source_id=EC-Earth3-ESM-1
• mip_era=CMIP6&activity_id=DCPP&institution_id=EC-Earth-Consortium&source_id=EC-Earth3-CC
• mip_era=CMIP6&activity_id=PMIP&institution_id=EC-Earth-Consortium&source_id=EC-Earth3

[treerink]

I replied this afternoon on a mail from Martina, essentially suggesting the following:

EC-Earth-Consortium	citation info proposed:
source_id= EC-Earth3-CC, activity_id= DCPP	The EC-Earth BSC group has been in lead
source_id=EC-Earth3, activity_id=PMIP	The EC-Earth Stockholm group has been in lead
source_id= EC-Earth3-Veg, activity_id= PMIP	The EC-Earth Stockholm group has been in lead
source_id=EC-Earth3-ESM-1, activity_id=CMIP	The EC-Earth OptimESM partners

[shutingdk]

Thank you @treerink and @durack1 for taking care of this issue.

As far as I am aware, all the EC-Earth3-ESM-1 model prductions are or CMIP6plus (under OptimESM project), not CMIP6. @treerink are you sure we also need to register it for CMIP6?

[shutingdk]

As far as I am aware, all the EC-Earth3-ESM-1 model prductions are or CMIP6plus (under OptimESM project), not CMIP6. @treerink are you sure we also need to register it for CMIP6?

Sorry I just checked. In fact, it is not decided yet whether the (ESM_)piControl and (ESM_historical) runs produced in OptimESM project using the EC-Earth3-ESM-1 (and other CMIP6plus models in the project) will be registered as CMIP6 or CMIP6plus. the OptimeESM consortium will discuss this issue after the new year.

[treerink]

@shutingdk yes I am sure (see here and some mails of today ;) ).

[durack1]

Thanks for the update folks. @treerink @shutingdk none of the "new" MIP activities or experiments that differ from the CMIP6-era protocols and forcing datasets are to be published into the CMIP6 project, this includes simulations generated under several activities/MIPs including LESFMIP, TIPMIP, RAMIP (which already have some experiments registered - see e.g., here), and likely OptimESM too. It's not clear to me what is OptimESM and what is HighResMIP2, which is also starting to spin up in preparation for ~2025 data publication

[shutingdk]

piControl and historical runs in OptimESM will follow the CMIP6 protocol, I think we have registered them as CMIP6 (esm-) runs. The idealised somulations in OptimESM will be the TIPMIP runs.

[durack1]

@shutingdk are they using CMIP6-era forcing data, that ends in 2014? If yes, then yep, you have CMIP6 simulations, if no, then they should be registered and published in CMIP6Plus - see https://github.com/WCRP-CMIP/CMIP6Plus_CVs and live data at https://aims2.llnl.gov/search?project=CMIP6Plus